Posted on 11/10/2006 8:01:51 PM PST by Jeremydmccann
Damn dude. I'll read later.
It's all Michael Savage's fault. There, you have your scapegoat.
Bingo
Bush didn't meet a bill that wasn't worthy of being signed.
"COME ONE COME ALL," he seemed to say.
Signing everything didn't make him seem more compassionate. And it didn't help with the Democrats.
When I did something wrong, I'd blame my sister. My mother never bought it, and neither should we. Let's blame Bush, let's follow Newt, let's go over the cliff.
Exactly. I want someone I can support, not just because he's somewhat better than the other guy. He/she doesn't have to be 100% on everything, but I know we can do better than we've done. susie
Signing everything didn't make him seem more compassionate. And it didn't help with the Democrats.He pandered and pandered and pandered to 'em.
I call BS on that one. Even if it's in fact true, this is still mostly rumors and the average voter likely knows little or nothing about the issue.
Tragically, they did not put forth candidates that WERE more conservative. They only sounded that way. Here in Tennessee, we saw through Harold Ford's mask enough to win against him. But if he had not had his record and family history hanging around his neck, I believe he would have won easily.
I think that your assessment is a bit harsh.
Bush could redeem himself with me if he would just sit in the oval office and veto every single thing coming out of congress over the next two years, and I mean everything!
Are you saying they didn't slander him?
Sad, but true. It is a sad day when conservative voters have to vote for a Dem because he is more conservative than the RINO he is running against.
"My hope is that, as we draw closer to the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, Constitutionally faithful candidates not tied to the Bush Administration will receive significant media attention and popular support."
Proof enough it's time for a third party, that won't sacrifice its core principles through "bipartisanship", to replace one of the existing parties.
Bush could redeem himself with me if he would just sit in the oval office and veto every single thing coming out of congress over the next two years, and I mean everything!Ok, KoRn, time to exhale. You're going to have a coughing fit if you hold it in that long.
If he vetoed ONE spending bill in the next two years, that would be a major event of historic proportions in the Bush Administration. Just one. I like to see just one.
(See. I called you a dreamer, but you're not the only one. I hope someday Bush will join us, and his Vetos count to ONE.)
Post 2 doesn't say anything except you plan to read the article later. So I'm supposed to know what you're thinking from that? Sorry, without knowing your IP address I can't possibly read your mind. I'm on Windows, not Linux.
Post #13.
You're losing it, kinoxi. Post #13 was my question to you. Is this your version of the old joke about prisoners knowing jokes so well they only had to call out the numbers and all the other prisoners would laugh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.